Jump to content

User talk:Enric Naval: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EdwardsBot (talk | contribs)
354,693 edits
Kils (talk | contribs)
3,612 edits
==hallo from Uwe Kils== can you please vote again on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils_(3rd_nomination). Best wishes ~~~~
Line 232: Line 232:
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single|Single-page]] &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] &middot; [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 05:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)</div>
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single|Single-page]] &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] &middot; [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 05:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)</div>

==hallo from Uwe Kils==
can you please vote again on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils_(3rd_nomination).
Best wishes [[User:Kils|<font color="A29EBA">'''''Uwe Kils''''']]</font> 10:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 0011 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 0011 -->

Revision as of 10:51, 9 December 2009



Is Storms RS? What about "heat dissipated into the lattice"?

Enric, I see that you have been discussing the removed material with Hipocrite. He's demanded that I not edit his Talk page for any purpose whatever, and I have no need to do so. I assume this is okay here. If not, please tell me.

However, some things should be said. First of all, Storms is RS, which doesn't automatically mean "unbiased," or "usable for fact" What independent book publication shows is notability. If RS states something, reference may be made in articles to that, it is, by definition, notable opinion; if it's controversial, it should be attributed.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

AfD nomination of Spermophagia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Spermophagia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spermophagia. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed IAF article for deletion

Hello. I've listed the IAF article for deletion here [1] I've noticed that you played a part in discussion at this page and would like your input. Peace and happy editing. 0nonanon0 (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Barbaro family

Good catch. I made the mistake of thinking Jky52 was blanking the information like they had the first time [2] That will teach me to post when I'm in a hurry. Thanks for correcting the error that was already in the article. I invite you to place the article on your watchlist, there's been a hoaxer trying to insert false claims for the past few years and an extra set of eyes would definitely help. Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jky is continuing to blank sources. Here they ax 5 English and Italian sources in1 edit. [3] Edward321 (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Project Chanology

Hey, please don't add unsourced info to articles, as you did at Project Chanology. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticfall & WP Pakistan

Hi, can I ask why you are reverting edits by Skepticfall (talk · contribs) en masses, as well as removing WikiProject:Pakistan templates from talk pages? GiantSnowman 17:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's because he is a sock of Strider11, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strider11. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough then - some of your changes showed up on my watchlist so I thought I'd just check! Regards, GiantSnowman 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I still need to remove some hundreds of edits, so you will see more edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop doing this and assess whether or not your tagging is beneficial to the encyclopedia? There is no need to get rid of valid information or a useful page just because a particular person made it. NW (Talk) 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave it a little thought: Strider11 is adding the Pakistan WP tag to pages where it's dubious that it belongs. Tags should be added by active members of a wikiproject not by the sock of an indef-blocked user who keeps creating lots of wikiprojects and categories that are way too small in scope, recreates wikiprojects that were deleted in MfD, tags everything that could possibly ever have anything to do with Pakistan, let's not mention the removal of the India wikiproject tag from pages where it belongs to replace it with the Pakistan one. He's just flooding the list of pages tagged with the Pakistan WP banner until the list will stop having any meaning. The WP banners are not to automatically classify every article, but to help the wikiproject members to make their wikiproject work. Strider11 is obviously not interested in those details, and he keeps creatin useless pages.
I also have the impression that he wants to fluff up the presence of Pakistan in wikipedia by artificially creating lots of Pakistan-related pages, independently of whether they are actually useful to wikipedia or not. I noticed how he created lots of userpage categories, and then he added one userpage to every one, which causes admins to decline speedy on them. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, I tried not to roll over stuff that was actually useful, like the category of Pakistani criket captains, or things like Template:Meetup/Pakistan. I still have to speedy or send to mfd more of his pages, but I'll continue tomorrow. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I'll try to give you a hand. Regards, NW (Talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet allegations

I do not understand this edit or the accompanying comment. The user who created the category and the redirects in it is not mentioned on the sockpuppet investigation page you linked to; in fact, that user's account is not even blocked. Is this a mistake? (Incidentally, I think redirects of this type are generally useless and should be deleted, but that's not the issue you raised.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the problem. The sock (User:Skepticfall) created two or three categories that were similar to this one, and he populated them from scratch by creating new redirects. Then he placed a few redirects into others categories that he hadn't created himself[4][5]. I nominated both the categories that he had created himself and the ones that he hadn't. Sorry about that, I take care not to squash the wrong pages, but, when reviewing +500 contributions, a few always manage to slip through. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Revisions

I see you've been undoing a number of edits by the said user above. Some of these edits seem to be productive and I was wondering whether they can be redone. If so, I ask for your permission if I can personally re-do themself? Acejet (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you see that I undid a useful edit then please revert it. Please don't restore the wikiproject banners unless you are a member of that wikiproject or one of its task forces. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I want more clarification for this. What if the wikiproject that has been tagged is relevant to the article/category (in this case, all the articles and categories that have been tagged by their wikiprojects seem relevant) ? Acejet (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The banners are used by the members of the wikiprojects to follow pages that they want to work with. If you are not a member of that wikiproject and you add a lot of pages to that wikiproject then you are filling their list with pages that maybe they are not interested with. This makes it difficult for them to follow the interesting pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bose Products Merge

Thanks for your input into the AfD for Bose stereo speakers et. al. As you may have seen, the result was No Consensus. I have started a discussion to find consensus on merging all of these articles together. Feel free to contribute your opinions here. Thanks! SnottyWong talk 23:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

AfD nomination of Bose wave systems

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bose wave systems, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose wave systems (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Schedule deleted

Why did you delete the construction scheduling page. I can assure you this a relevant topic to an encyclopedia as well as the topic of many researchers in addition to professionals. I think your decision to delete was hasty, based on opinion, and did not consult anyone that had any knowledge of the topic. Please restore the page Granite07 (talk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_3#Schedule_.28Construction.29_.E2.86.92_Primavera_P3

You probably want to leave a message at User talk:VegaDark, since this was the administrator who performed the actual deletion. Just claiming that the topic is encyclopedic is not enough, you need to find some reliable sources showing how Scheduling (construction) is a specific enclyclopedic topic different from Scheduling (production processes) or from the other types of scheduling. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

hallo from Uwe Kils

can you please vote again on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils_(3rd_nomination). Best wishes Uwe Kils 10:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enric_Naval&oldid=330645592"